THE 

RELATION OF THE SEXES 
TO GOVERNMENT 


BY 

PROF. EDWARD D. GOPE 

9 


ISSUED BY 

The New York State Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage 

35 WEST 39th STREET 
NEW YORK CITY 


IH EXCHAME 



JUN 


: , 

2 5 VU 


o? 




A S is well known, the diversity of sex is of very ancient 
origin. It appeared in the history of life before the rise 
of any but the most rudimental mentality, and has at 
various points in the line of development of living things dis¬ 
played itself in the most pronounced manner. Great peculiar¬ 
ities of sex structure are witnessed in the higher forms of 
life, as in birds and mammalia. The greatest peculiarity of 
mental sex character can only be seen where mind is most 
developed—that is, in man. 

From what we know of sexual as compared with non-sexual 
reproduction, the advent of the former marked an important 
advance in the possibilities of progress. Reproduction by 
gemmation in non-sexual forms, and parthenogenesis in sexual 
animals, have a different result from sexual reproduction. In 
the former the characters of the single parent are reproduced 
with great fidelity. The cultivator who wishes to keep his 
stock true uses buds and cuttings. On the other hand, seed¬ 
lings are variable; because the offspring of two sexes inherit 
twice as many elements of difference as those of a single sex. 
Another great gain was secured in the development of a male 
sex. Being free from the disabilities imposed by maternity, 
the male could acquire a greater mastery over his environment 
than the female. His time would be less occupied, and his 
opportunity for physical exertion greater, and he could and 
would take a more active part in the struggle for existence. 
Hence, of the two sexes the male became the fighter and 
the provider, and necessarily, from the increasing muscular 
strength acquired in this more active life, the master of the 
two. He therefore became more specialized in some respects, 
particularly in those necessary to success in his various under¬ 
takings. His part in reproduction became a specialization as 
compared with that of the female, which more nearly re¬ 
sembles the asexual method. So the male became the author 
of variation in species in two ways: first, by adding to the 
sources of inheritance; and second, by his own more numerous 
specializations. 

In man the mental organization of the sexes expresses these 
facts in various ways. The sexual mental characteristics of 
men and women have been described by Lecky, Delaunay, 
Ladd , 1 P. G. Hamerton, and others, and with a unanimity that 
would of itself be authoritative if they did not confirm the 
belief of thoughtful observers generally. Woman is not only 
restrained by her reproductive functions from taking the 


1 “Elements of Physiological Psychology,” 1887. 



same active part in the world’s life as does man; but, what is 
more important, she inherits a greater disability from thou¬ 
sands of ages of equal and in some cases greater disability in 
the countless generations of man’s animal ancestors. This 
nature is thoroughly ingrained, and is as permanent as any 
other part of her organism. In considering these mental 
peculiarities, it must be borne in mind that she inherits from 
her father as well as from her mother, so that she has benefited 
by the general progress of the race, but her relation to the 
male remains the same in each family taken by itself. Thus 
it has resulted that the women of a higher race or family will 
display superior traits to men of a lower race or family, even 
in some of the endowments which are the especial field of the 
male. And it is comparisons of this sort which frequently 
cause the question to be raised, whether the supposed superior 
rationality with which men are credited is ascribed to them 
justly. In the great variety of history and origin possessed 
by the people who are thrown together by our modern civiliza¬ 
tion, it must often happen that the women of superior lineage 
provoke favorable comparison with men whose ancestors have 
emerged from semi-savagery within a comparatively recent 
period. Nevertheless, in these cases also, sex qualities of 
mind are well marked, though more or less limited on the part 
of the inferior type. 

It is the fundamental fact above stated that needs to be 
considered before all others, by those persons who believe 
that the present relations of the sexes, socially and politically, 
can and should be improved. And the next fact to be con¬ 
sidered is, that persons who do not undertake the special 
functions of sex are of secondary importance in the question 
It is evident that the influence on future generations of per¬ 
sons who do not produce those generations is exceedingly 
small compared with the influence of the persons who do 
produce them; just in proportion as acquired characters are 
in small proportion to inherited ones. In all influence that 
depends on physical conditions, that of parents immensely 
preponderates over that of all others. Hence, in the present 
paper, the relations of parents will be considered rather than 
those of other persons. For the good of the race, the parent 
must have the first place in the mind of the legislator, and all 
other persons must occupy a position of subordinate im¬ 
portance. 

In comparing male and female minds, we should take them 
at their best, and not at their worst. We should take real 
livers, and not pretenders; that is, persons who exercise their 
higher faculties, or who live up to their capacities. Very 
many men and women waste their higher faculties by disuse, 
but the married are less apt to live this aimless life than the 

2 


unmarried. As there are persons who deny matters of ordi¬ 
nary observation, the actual differences of the minds of the 
sexes in general may be very briefly enumerated. We find in 
man a greater capacity for rational processes, a capacity which 
is not always exercised to its full. We find in men a greater 
capacity for endurance of the activity of the rational faculty. 
We find in men a greater capacity for work in those depart¬ 
ments of intelligence which require mechanical skill of a high 
order. In the esthetic department we find incapacity more 
general than in women—certainly in the department of the 
esthetics of the person. In women we find that the deficiency 
of endurance of the rational faculty is associated with a gen¬ 
eral incapacity for mental strain, and, as her emotional nature 
is stronger, that strain is more severe than it is in man under 
similar circumstances. Hence the easy breakdown under 
stress, which is probably the most distinctive feature of the 
female mind. This peculiarity, when pronounced, becomes 
the hysterical temperament. But in all departments of mental 
action that depend on affection or emotion for their excellence, 
woman is the superior of man; in those departments where 
affection should not enter, she is his inferior. I think that 
most of the peculiarities of mind of the sexes may be traced 
to these first principles. The origin of these leading differ¬ 
ences is not difficult to trace to the different functions of the 
sexes in the family relation, emphasized by repetition through¬ 
out the long ages of vertebrate, mammalian, and human his¬ 
tory. Beginning with the maternal instinct, woman has be¬ 
come, by constant exercise, a being of affections. Her long 
protection by the male has reduced her capacity for defense; 
while the mastery by him has accustomed her to yielding, 
and to the use of methods of accomplishing her desires other 
than force. There are apparent exceptions to these definitions, 
but they are generally more apparent than real. For one of 
the characteristics of the female of man, acquired by long 
practice, is a capacity for keeping up the appearance of pos¬ 
sessing qualities in which she is more or less deficient. A 
ready capacity for acquisition of knowledge, and skill in lan¬ 
guage, are important contributors to this result. 

It would seem, then, that nature has marked out very 
clearly the relative positions of the sexes of man. This rela¬ 
tion is beneficial not only from a natural but also from a social 
standpoint. The sex affection, or passion, has the greatest 
influence in compelling evolution of unwilling lives, and of 
driving where nothing can lead. The best emotions are 
aroused in the man who finds a woman dependent on him for 
support, and the infant’s breath will awake that woman to 
serious thought and exertion who never had a serious thought 
before. Nor is the mutual benefit confined to the earlier days 

3 


of the relation. It has been said elsewhere : x “While the inter¬ 
ests of the members of the same sex often bring them into 
collision with each other, those of opposite sex cannot nor¬ 
mally do so. While the contests of the members of the one 
sex are the active agent in evolution by rivalry and force, the 
relations of opposite sex furnish the inducement to progress 
offered by mutual admiration and pleasure. Among mankind 
the necessity of pleasing and of inspiring the respect of the 
opposite sex has a great deal to do with the becoming pleasant 
and respectable.” 

The functions of the sexes being, then, different in society 
as in nature, the question arises, To what extent should they 
perform identical functions? This question is pressed upon 
us to-day, and demands have* arisen that woman should com¬ 
pete with man in all the forms of human activity, and should 
even have a hand in the government, whether constitutional 
or monarchical. The object of the present essay is to enumer¬ 
ate a few practical points with reference to these qustions. 

So far as regards cultivation of the mind, there can be no 
doubt that women should have all the facilities that are open 
to men. As the mothers of the human race, they should be 
deprived of no opportunity for development. The education 
of girls should be pushed as far as is consistent with good 
health. Had the education of women been encouraged earlier 
in human history, the general intelligence of the species would 
have been at a higher point to-day. 

The competition with men by women in the pursuit of a 
livelihood is a necessity wherever women so outnumber men 
that they cannot all marry, and where polygamy is not prac¬ 
ticed. It is compulsory, and questions of taste and feeling 
have to be put aside in considering it. And the same unbend¬ 
ing necessity decides the pursuit in which woman fails, and 
that in which she succeeds. In some she succeeds easily; in 
some she can never succeed. Between these extremes lies a 
territory in which each case settles itself. But it will ever re¬ 
main true that, for the normal woman, the home life is both 
the easiest and the happiest. 

When we come to the question of government, we reach a 
field in which the acts of men do not concern themselves 
alone, but exercise an important influence on the lives of 
others. Is woman by physical and mental constitution adapted 
to engage in the various duties and services required in the 
making and executing laws, and in the enterprises which 
nations find necessary in order to carry on their functions and 
preserve themselves from internal and external enemies? 

It must be here premised that the progress of civilization 

l “The Forum,” September, 1887, p. 53, “On the Object of Life.” 


4 



has thus far emphasized and not diminished the peculiarities 
of sex. The civilized woman is more refined, more tender, 
more intelligent, and more hysterical than her savage repre¬ 
sentative. Her form is more different from that of the male, 
and her face more expressive of her distinctive character. 
There is good reason to believe that this development has been 
due to the increased immunity from the severity of the “strug¬ 
gle for existence” which woman enjoys in civilized communi¬ 
ties, and the greater opportunity thus given her to develop her 
own especial excellences. 

The first thought that strikes us in considering the woman- 
suffrage movement is, that it is a proposition to engage women 
once more in that “struggle” from which civilization has en¬ 
abled them in great measure to escape; and that its effect, if 
long continued and fairly tried, will be to check the develop¬ 
ment of woman as such, and to bring to bear on her influences 
of a kind different from those which have been hitherto active. 
And it becomes an impartial thinker to examine the question 
more closely, and see whether investigation bears out these 
impressions or not. We inquire, then, in the first place, Is 
government a function adapted to the female character, or 
within the scope of her natural powers? We then endeavor 
to discover whether her occupation of this field of action is 
calculated to promote the mutual sex interest which has been 
referred to above, and thus to subserve the natural evolution 
of hum anity. 

In endeavoring to answer the first question we are at once 
met by the undoubted fact that woman is physically incapable 
of carrying into execution any law she may enact. She can¬ 
not,, therefore, be called on to serve in any executive capacity 
where law is to be executed on adults. Now service in the 
support of laws enacted by those who “rule by the consent of 
the governed” is a sine qua non of the right to elect governors. 
It is a common necessity to which all of the male sex are, 
during most of their lives, liable to be called on to sustain. 
This consideration alone, it appears to me, puts the propriety 
of female suffrage out of the question. The situation is such 
that the sexes cannot take an equal share of governmental re¬ 
sponsibilities even if they should desire to do so. Woman 
suffrage becomes government by women alone on every occa¬ 
sion where a measure is carried by the aid of woman’s votes. 
If such a measure should be obnoxious to a majority of men. 
they could successfully defy a party composed of a minority 
of their own sex and a majority of the women. That this 
would be done there can be no question, for we have a parallel 
case in the attempt to carry into effect negro suffrage in some 
parts of the South. We know the history too well. Intimida 
tion, deception, and the manipulation of the count have nulli- 

5 


fied the negro vote. How many governors, legislatures, and 
even Presidents have attained their positions in violation of 
the rights of the ballot during the last twenty years, we may 
never know. In times of peace and general prosperity these 
things have excited indignant protest, but nothing more. P»ut 
when serious issues distract the nation or any part of it, frauds 
on the ballot and intimidation of voters will be a more serious 
matter, and will lead to disastrous consequences. We do not 
want to increase possibilities of such evil portent. Unquali¬ 
fied negro suffrage is, in the writer’s estimation, a serious 
blunder, and woman suffrage would be another. And it is 
now proposed that we have both combined. 

Immunity from service in executing the law would make 
most women irresponsible voters. But there are other rea¬ 
sons why the questions involved in government are foreign 
to the thoughts of most women. The characteristics of the 
female mind have been already described. Most men who have 
associated much with girls and women remember how many 
needed lessons they have learned from them in refinement and 
benevolence; and how they have had, on the other hand, to 
steel their minds against their aimlessness and pettiness. And 
from youth to later years they have observed one peculiarity 
for which no remedy has been yet found, and that is, a pro¬ 
nounced frailty of the rational faculty in thought or action. 
This characteristic is offset by a strength and elevation of the 
emotional nature, which shines with inextinguishable luster in 
the wife and mother. It is to this that man renders the hom¬ 
age of respect, admiration, and such devotion as he is capable 
of. But are these the qualities for our governors? Men who 
display personal bias in ever so small a degree, unless accom¬ 
panied by unusual merits of another kind, are not selected by 
their fellows for positions of responsibility and trust. Strong 
understanding, vigorous judgment, and the absence of “fear, 
favor, and affection,” are what men desire in their governors; 
for only through minds of that character can justice be ob¬ 
tained. 

On account of their stronger sympathies girls always think 
themselves the moral superiors of boys, who are often singu¬ 
larly devoid of benevolence, especially toward the lower ani¬ 
mals. Some women imagine, for this reason, that their entire 
sex is morally the superior of the male. But a good many 
women learn to correct this opinion. In departments of mor¬ 
als which depend on the emotional nature, women are the 
superior; for those which depend on the rational nature, man 
is the superior. When the balance is struck, I can see no 
inferiority on either side. But the quality of justice remains 
with the male. It is on this that men and women must alike 
depend, and hence it is that women so often prefer to be 

6 


judged by men rather than by their own sex. They will not 
gain anything, I believe, by assuming the right of suffrage 
that they cannot gain without it, and they might meet with 
serious loss. In serving the principle of “the greatest good 
of the greatest number,” man is constantly called on to dis¬ 
regard the feelings of particular persons, and even to outrage 
their dearest ties of home and family. Women cannot do this 
judicially. After the terrors of the law have done their work, 
woman steps in and binds up the wounds of the victims, and 
the world blesses both the avenger and the comforter. 

In the practical working of woman suffrage, women would 
either vote in accordance with the views of their husbands and 
lovers or they would not. Should they do the former habitu¬ 
ally, such suffrage becomes a farce, and the only result would 
be to increase the aggregate number of votes cast. Should 
women vote in opposition to the men to whom they are bound 
by ties sentimental or material, unpleasant consequences 
would sooner or later arise. No man would view with equa¬ 
nimity the spectacle of his wife or daughters nullifying his 
vote at the polls, or contributing their influence to sustain a 
policy of government which he should think injurious to his 
own well-being or that of the community. His purse would 
be more open to sustain the interests of his own political 
party, and if he lived in the country he would probably not 
furnish transportation to the polls for such members of his 
family as voted against him. He would not probably will¬ 
ingly entertain at his house persons who should be active in 
obtaining the votes of his wife and daughters against himself; 
and on the other hand the wife might refuse entertainment 
to the active agents of the party with which she might not 
be in sympathy. The unpleasantness in the social circle 
which comes into view with the advent of woman suffrage is 
formidable in the extreme, and nothing less than some neces¬ 
sity yet undreamed of should induce us to give entrance to 
such a disturber of the peace. We need no additional causes of 
marital infelicity. But we are told by the woman-suffrage 
advocate that such objections on the part of men are 
without good reason, and are prejudices which should be set 
aside. But they cannot be set aside so long as human nature 
remains what it is. Men may grant women anything but the 
right to rule them, but there they draw the line. Is it not on 
questions of rule that the wars of men are mostly fought, and 
will men yield to the weak what they only yield to irresistible 
force? In the settlement of all questions by force, women are 
only in the way. 

The effect of sexual discord is bad on both sexes, but has its 
greatest influence for evil through women. While it does not 
remove her frailties it suppresses her distinctively feminine 

7 


virtues. This suppression, continued for a few generations, 
must end in their greater or less abolition. The lower in¬ 
stincts would remain, the flowers which blossom on that stem 
would wither. No matter what their intellectuality might 
be, such women would produce a race of moral barbarians, 
which would perish ultimately through intestine strife. The 
highest interests and pleasures of the male man are bound up 
in the effective preservation of the domestic affections of his 
partner. When these traits are weak, he should use every 
effort to develop them by giving them healthy exercise. As 
in all evolution, disuse ultimately ends in atrophy, and the 
atrophy of the affections in woman is a disaster in direct pro¬ 
portion to its extent. It may be replied again that woman 
suffrage carries with it no such probable result. But I believe 
that it does, unless the relations of the sexes are to be reversed. 
But it will be difficult to reduce the male man to the condition 
of the drone bee (although some men seem willing to fill that 
role) ; or of the male spider, who is first a husband and then a 
meal for his spouse. We have gone too far in the opposite 
direction for that. It will be easier to produce a reversion to 
barbarism in both sexes by the loss of their mutual mental 
hyperaesthesia. 

If women would gain anything with the suffrage that they 
cannot gain without it, one argument would exist in its favor 
to the many against it; but the cause of women has made 
great progress without it, and will, I hope, continue to do so. 
Even in the matter of obtaining greater facilities for divorce 
from drunken, or insane, or brutal husbands than now exist 
in many States of the Union, they can compel progress by 
agitation. A woman’s society, with this reform as its object, 
would obtain definite results. The supposition that woman 
would improve the price of her labor by legislation is not 
more reasonable than it is in the case of men, who have to 
yield to the inexorable law of supply and demand. 

When we consider the losses that women would sustain 
with the suffrage carried into effect bona fide, the reasons in its 
favor dwindle out of sight. The first effect would be to render 
marriage more undesirable to women than it is now. A 
premium would be at once set on unmarried life for women, 
and the hetaera would become a more important person to 
herself and to the state, than the wife, because more independ¬ 
ent. The number of men and women who would adopt some 
system of marriage without obligation would greatly increase. 
Confidence and sympathy between married people would be 
in many instances impaired; in fact, the first and many other 
steps would be taken in the process of weakening home affec¬ 
tion, and there would follow a corresponding loss of its civiliz¬ 
ing influences and a turning backward of the current of moral 

8 


progress. The intervention of women in public affairs is to 
be dreaded also by those who desire peace among men. Both 
women and their male friends resent treatment for them 
which men would quite disregard as applied to themselves; 
and woman suffrage would see the introduction of more or 
less women into public life. The extreme and irresponsible 
language of Mrs. Stanton and Mrs. Lathrop at the last wo¬ 
man’s congress in Washington effectively illustrates this as¬ 
pect of the question. 

The devotional nature of women must not be left out of the 
account in considering this question. While this element is 
of immense value to that sex and to society when expended 
upon ethical themes, when it is allied to theological issues 
it becomes an obstruction to progress of the most serious 
nature. Were woman suffrage granted, theological questions 
would at once assume a new political importance, and religious 
liberty and toleration would have to pass through new perils 
and endure the test of new strains. What the effect would be 
we cannot foresee, but it could not be good. The priest would 
acquire a new political importance, and the availability of 
candidates would be greatly influenced by their church affilia¬ 
tions. 

Many objections would be nullified if women should vote 
under the immediate direction of their responsible male asso¬ 
ciate, except the one based on their exemption from the execu¬ 
tion of the laws; but, should they so vote, woman suffrage 
becomes a farce, as it is to that extent where it now prevails. 
The very essential support given by women voters to polyg¬ 
amy in Utah is an illustration of this. In Wyoming men load 
up wagons with their women to drive them to the polls to 
vote their own ticket, as I have had the opportunity of seeing in 
that territory; and so they would do everywhere. If they 
wished to vote otherwise, they might stay at home; and it is to 
be expected that women would sometimes wish to vote “other¬ 
wise.” 

What I have written does not include any reference to sup¬ 
posed inherent right to the suffrage or to any principles of 
representative government. This is because the view that 
suffrage is not a right but a privilege appears to the writer 
to be the most rational one, and because any system of govern¬ 
ment which tends to disturb the natural relations of the sexes 
I believe to be most injurious. In the absolute governments 
of Europe the home is safe whatever else may suffer; but a 
system which shall tend to the dissolution of the home is more 
dangerous than any form of absolutism which at the same 
time respects the social unit. 

What America needs is not an extension, but a restriction of 
the suffrage. 

Reprinted from the “Popular Science Monthly” for Oct., 1888 . 

9 




